4.6 Article

Physical Activity and Constipation in Hong Kong Adolescents

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090193

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Research Committee, University of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the association of constipation with exercise, non-exercise physical activity, and sedentary behaviours in Hong Kong adolescents. Methods: In 2006-2007, 42 secondary schools were randomly selected to participate in the Hong Kong Student Obesity Surveillance (HKSOS) project. A total of 33692 Form 1-7 students (44.9% boys; mean age 14.8, SD 1.9 years) completed an anonymous questionnaire on lifestyle behaviours. Constipation was defined as a frequency of evacuation of less than once every two days. Exercise (moderate-to-vigorous levels) and non-exercise physical activity (NEPA) were each considered insufficient when less than 1 hour per day, and sedentary behaviours were considered excessive when over 4 hours per day. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for constipation in relation to exercise, NEPA, and sedentary behaviours, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: Constipation was identified in 15.6% (95% CI 15.2% - 16.0%) of adolescents overall, 14.0% in those with sufficient exercise and 19.6% in those without. Constipation was associated with insufficient exercise (AOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 - 1.36), insufficient NEPA 1.21 (1.10 - 1.33) and excessive sedentary behaviours (1.25, 1.17 - 1.34). Compared with having none of the above 3 inactive behaviours, increasing AORs of constipation were observed for having 1 (AOR 1.23), 2 (AOR 1.57) and 3 (AOR 1.88) inactive behaviours (p for trend <0.001). Conclusions: Constipation was associated with insufficient physical activity and excessive sedentary behaviours among Chinese adolescents with a dose-response relation. If the association is causal, constipation could be prevented by promotion of physical activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据